- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A Dallas hospital worker now has Ebola
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:57 pm to Magicmikeforlsu
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:57 pm to Magicmikeforlsu
Link?
0
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:57 pm to Magicmikeforlsu
quote:Do you have a link?
CDC now admitting its airborne.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:57 pm to Boats n Hose
Good post. 
Posted on 10/12/14 at 10:04 pm to Magicmikeforlsu
quote:
CDC now admitting its airborne. Why the initial cover up? Time for answer from our wonderful government.
I'm telling you, that nurse knew she was in a bio hazard death pit and I bet she had double protection - wouldn't you. I don't believe she broke protocol or whatever. I think the shite IS airborne and I think she smelled his fart (unintentionally), or his breath/cough.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 10:07 pm to JawjaTigah
No link from that clown I guess.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 10:08 pm to tewino
Then why only the one?
Airborne viruses are absurdly contagious.
Why there was only one health care worker infected among many who treated Duncan, and only 8000 people total over the past YEAR in Africa to be infected.
Did Duncan hate this particular nurse and wanted her to die, but held his breath for everyone else?
These are facts that you can't reconcile with this strange insistence that we dont understand this virus and that it is really airborne.
Airborne viruses are absurdly contagious.
Why there was only one health care worker infected among many who treated Duncan, and only 8000 people total over the past YEAR in Africa to be infected.
Did Duncan hate this particular nurse and wanted her to die, but held his breath for everyone else?
These are facts that you can't reconcile with this strange insistence that we dont understand this virus and that it is really airborne.
This post was edited on 10/12/14 at 10:10 pm
Posted on 10/12/14 at 10:24 pm to Boats n Hose
I appreciate that you understand the virus MUCH better than I. I also understand that you probably understand the healthcare industry MUCH better than I.
But, from an outsider looking in, we've had ONE case of Ebola in the US. (other than the 2-3 that we knowingly imported/treated) In that one case, we let the dude die and infect a caretaker... and we KNEW he had it when he infected her (as I understand.)
It just seems obvious to me, that "we" don't have a handle on this situation, and it just seems to me that this is one of those rare situations that "we" don't need to collect a massive sample size to determine how we handle it.
just my simple-minded logic.
But, from an outsider looking in, we've had ONE case of Ebola in the US. (other than the 2-3 that we knowingly imported/treated) In that one case, we let the dude die and infect a caretaker... and we KNEW he had it when he infected her (as I understand.)
It just seems obvious to me, that "we" don't have a handle on this situation, and it just seems to me that this is one of those rare situations that "we" don't need to collect a massive sample size to determine how we handle it.
just my simple-minded logic.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 10:29 pm to Grassy1
I just don't understand why you feel just because a nurse fricked up and broke protocol and got sick we don't have a handle on this.
The course of events that would support that statement would be that she went a week without telling people, and infected others, and she went back to the hospital while she was crashing.
For all we know, they were giving daily tests to all direct caretakers, and they caught this before she got symptomatic.
That is called being on top of it. Her frick up doesn't mean the system failed.
And BTW, FWIW, she is going to make it IMO.
ETA: she was tested after having a low grade fever.
The course of events that would support that statement would be that she went a week without telling people, and infected others, and she went back to the hospital while she was crashing.
For all we know, they were giving daily tests to all direct caretakers, and they caught this before she got symptomatic.
That is called being on top of it. Her frick up doesn't mean the system failed.
And BTW, FWIW, she is going to make it IMO.
ETA: she was tested after having a low grade fever.
This post was edited on 10/12/14 at 10:33 pm
Posted on 10/12/14 at 10:34 pm to Volvagia
Volvagia, you are obviously an idiot
Posted on 10/12/14 at 10:39 pm to CaliforniaTiger
Been pretty spot on the money as far as Ebola goes so far....
But, please, tell me why I am wrong.
I've said all along from the day of this breaking that the people he infects aren't the concern. You won't know containment failed until tertiary patients are infected.
But, please, tell me why I am wrong.
I've said all along from the day of this breaking that the people he infects aren't the concern. You won't know containment failed until tertiary patients are infected.
This post was edited on 10/12/14 at 10:43 pm
Posted on 10/12/14 at 10:42 pm to Volvagia
It just seems to me that if we had a handle on this, we wouldn't have a 1:1 ratio of infected person to infect another person.
Especially when we only have ONE damn person to "handle."
How well would/will we handle this when we have ten or twenty different patients in 10-20 different cities in 10-20 different hospitals?
I really do appreciate everyone sharing their varying points of views, and varying expertise in this area.
For now, I would only be stating the same, only with different words, so I'll bow out and watch.
Especially when we only have ONE damn person to "handle."
How well would/will we handle this when we have ten or twenty different patients in 10-20 different cities in 10-20 different hospitals?
I really do appreciate everyone sharing their varying points of views, and varying expertise in this area.
For now, I would only be stating the same, only with different words, so I'll bow out and watch.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 10:45 pm to Grassy1
quote:
It just seems to me that if we had a handle on this, we wouldn't have a 1:1 ratio of infected person to infect another person.
Again....why are you talking as if he only had contact with one health care worker in the weeks of being in the hospital?
Posted on 10/12/14 at 10:45 pm to CaliforniaTiger
All you people with this blind faith in our government is mind boggling. Most of these clowns in the higher positions of government are there because they can't get jobs somewhere legit. When was the last time our government ever fully dealt with a legit crisis, saw it though until the end and had it end with satisfactory results? There's not that many. Face it, at the highest levels, our government has always been full of frick ups.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 10:46 pm to Grassy1
quote:
How well would/will we handle this when we have ten or twenty different patients in 10-20 different cities in 10-20 different hospitals?
About the same.
I'm more worried about all the false alarms allowing any to sneak through more than anything.
A lot of people with the cold or flu will be thinking "Ebola"
Posted on 10/12/14 at 10:47 pm to artompkins
So, what's the alternative?
Posted on 10/12/14 at 10:48 pm to artompkins
It's time to turn off your 99 Compaq Presario and step out of your trailer for some fresh air.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 10:48 pm to Volvagia
Shouldn't we be worried about the patients she has treated since she treated him? Are you saying they haven't let her treat patients since him? And if they have that they've kept tabs on those she has treated and kept tabs on the people that those patients have interacted with since being treated by her?
I refuse to believe that a hospital that can't even make sure their employees follow proper protocol is that efficient.
I refuse to believe that a hospital that can't even make sure their employees follow proper protocol is that efficient.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 10:48 pm to Volvagia
quote:
gain....why are you talking as if he only had contact with one health care worker in the weeks of being in the hospital?
1:1
1 infected person
Results in 1 more infected person. (that we know of)
That's our success/failure rate, no matter how many people he was exposed to.
I'm trying to leave this.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 10:49 pm to Grassy1
FWIW I'm not trying to come off as a dick. I just want people to understand this a little better. While I can see you don't have much of a grasp of the science of disease and the healthcare field in general, you're at least being reasonable/sane about it. No hard feelings.
Some posters earlier in this thread I couldn't tell if they were intentionally trolling or brain damaged.
Some posters earlier in this thread I couldn't tell if they were intentionally trolling or brain damaged.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 10:50 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
I would assume that if a nurse was treating patient 0, she wouldn't be treating other patients. JMO.
Page 13 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News